|
T3INUTES
<br />of
<br />THE MEETING
<br />of
<br />THE PLANNING COTTi9ISSI0N
<br />Pleasanton, California
<br />January 22, 1964
<br />The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at
<br />St00 P.M, on Wednesday, January 22, 1964, by Chairman Philip Landon.
<br />ROLL CALL showed the following:
<br />Present: Commissioners Antonini
<br />Lozano
<br />Raga
<br />Chairman Landon
<br />Secretary False
<br />Absent: Commissioner Wipfli
<br />On motion of Commissioner Antonini, seconded by Commissioner Rega, the minutes of
<br />the meeting of January 8, 1964, were approved ae presented by unanimous vote of
<br />those Commissioners present.
<br />Chairman Landon proceeded to the application of Merle Ahern, 3713 Encline Way,
<br />Belmont, for a Zoning Permit with Site Plan and Architectural Approval in order
<br />to construct fourteen multiple dwelling unite at 4795 Harrison Street, in an RG-15
<br />District. This matter was continued from the meeting of January 8, 1964. City
<br />Engineer Campbell continued the staff report from the previous meeting by stating
<br />that the staff is now in receipt of a letter dated January 21, 1964, from James T.
<br />and John T. Koplos indicating they have sold all their rights to the aubjecC prop-
<br />erty to Merle Ahern. The City has also received a letter from Mr. Chris Bexatlia
<br />dated January 22, 1964, stating that Mr. Ahern is the optionee on the subject prop-
<br />erty and hie application should be considered, possibly ae an amendment to the
<br />previous application. The present application appears to be for fourteen unite,
<br />whereas the original application was for twelve uni.ta. City Attorney Struthers
<br />recommended amending the previous application rather than filing a new application.
<br />The original resolution could either be amended, or rescinded and a new one adopted.
<br />If the resolution were amended, there would not be two parallel proceedings for one
<br />piece of land. This could be termed an application for amended zoning permit, and
<br />the conditions and arrangements of the earlier zoning permit should then be revoked
<br />ae a part thereof. Mr. Campbell, in continuing the staff report, said hie recom-
<br />mendations are based on the assumption that the current applicaticn is for fourteen
<br />units. The loC area, aide and rear yard setbacks, site width and parking spaces
<br />indicated are adequate. The front yard setback requirement ie 25 ft., whereas 20 ft.
<br />is proposed; however, by Resolution No. 230, dated July 10, 1963, the Planning Com-
<br />misaion has already granted this Variance, which is accepted ae it goes with the
<br />land and is not based on specific plane. The curb, gutter and sidewalk already
<br />exist. The staff recommendations are as follows: (1) Prior to issuance of a build-
<br />ing permit, a property surveq, grading and drainage plan and landscape plan must be
<br />submitted for City staff approval. (2) Construction of a solid board fence or mason-
<br />ry wall 4 to 6 ft, in height along the rear property line and portions of both aide
<br />property lines adjacent to parking area as shown on annotated plan. (3) Parking lot
<br />be paved to City standards (minimum of 1§" asphalt concrete and 5" aggregate base.)
<br />(4) Planter strip be filled with concrete to City standards, leaving a minimum of
<br />five planter pockets and plant appropriate trees therein--minimum size of tree shall
<br />be 6 ft.; species to be selected by City Engineer. (5) Construct driveway ap-
<br />proaches to City standards. (6) Provide two 10-ft. driveways or one 20-ft. driveway.
<br />It was the consensus of the Commission that the present plan crowds the area of the
<br />subject parcel, and leaves less open apace than would be desirable. After consider-
<br />able discussion by the Commission, it was saved by Commissioner Rega. seconded by
<br />Commissioner Lozano, and carried, that the matter be continued to the meeting of
<br />February 13, 1964, and in the meantime the staff advise Mr. Ahern that consideration
<br />be given to revising the driveway plan and allocation of additional open apace.
<br />The next item on the agenda was the application of Arrow Neon, 1023 - 45th Avenue,
<br />Oakland, for a Zoning Permit in order to install a 4'x6' non-flashing electric
<br />plastic sign at 728 Main St., in a C-C District. Mr. Falea stated the requirements
<br />of Ord. No. 309 are met with regard to projection, clearance, height and area. The
<br />
|